Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Micko on March 15, 2014 at 2:24am

To be honest it sounds too good to be true. Why are they unpublished? Are you absolutely sure they are? If so then why are they are ready for print. Just because you can see the newspapers registration marks does not mean they are anything other than from a newspapers archive. Also do a search on this website for Schulz and there is plenty of information and some samples of his signature, and first off you'll see that the 'S' is not the same. This is only my humble opinion and there are plenty of Schulz experts here, but there is something a little off about these. And I would imagine that they are going for a pretty price.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen Jerabeck on March 15, 2014 at 8:45am

The "s" is the one thing that's been bugging me, as well. Going to take it to PSA/DNA tomorrow, but figured I would see what the internet had to say. The Schulz museum is in Santa Rosa, so I'm heading there today to look at some things. 

I definitely agree on the "too good to be true" thing. I just couldn't live with myself if i didn't take every avenue possible to get an opinion when I've got the chance to buy them at a great price. Once I get PSA/DNA's vote on it, that'll be the end all. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Micko on March 15, 2014 at 10:56am

That seems like sound thinking. And since you are in the right part of the world to check these things, it would certainly make sense. Good luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Schwartz on March 15, 2014 at 4:41pm

The first one is definitely not unpublished. Here it is in an online archive.

http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1981/04/26

I can't read the date on the second one because the picture is blurry.

Is this supposed to be original art? Because my god, I would hope nobody scribbled a forgery on those. I would think these are newspaper production pieces or some other type of reprint, no?

As far as the signature goes, the "Charles" could be considered somewhat close, but the "M. Schulz" is completely wrong IMO.

Something fuzzy going on here...I look forward to an update, Allen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen Jerabeck on March 15, 2014 at 4:48pm

This is the reason I've posted it online. I don't believe their original pieces. Thanks for finding that, didn't realize I could search GoComics that way. I thought it would only give out a random strip. 

Just found the second one. http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1981/05/03#.UyTnhdzawds

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Schwartz on March 15, 2014 at 4:52pm

In the third panel you can see 4-26 and the syndicate copyright looked like 1981 to me.

In the second piece, the date is in the last panel, but I can't tell what it is, or if it's also 1981. That July 25 date doesn't help us here.

Edited to add: If they're not originals, then I really don't see an added value in them being unpublished anyway. Sounds like some BS to add mystique and misdirection to what is in my opinion a forgery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen Jerabeck on March 17, 2014 at 7:35pm

Thanks all for your opinions, and your help. 

PSA/DNA authentication came back "questionable". That was a nice $150 well spent! haha I had a chance to bring them to the Charles Schulz Museum here in Santa Rosa, and spoke with one of their collections mangers. 

She explained that he didn't give out the kind of reprint that my acquaintance had, although he did give out his original art quite frequently. Then she began to tear the signature apart. It was funny listening to her try to be nice about it. In the end, she called it one of the "worst she had ever seen". 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Micko on March 18, 2014 at 1:53pm

It's a real shame, how nice would it have been to own two strips signed by the great man! Good research job! better luck next time!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa tarbuck on March 22, 2014 at 2:41am

Take it to yossi dina 

• ▶ Reply